Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. No, we block grant----

Mr. DODD. If the parents go to work, we are trying to provide a setting for those children in that situation. Rather than have them go onto the streets, there is some child care setting for them.

Mr. DODD. Let me respond, if I may, to my colleague. Two points. One, on child care, there is a cap on entitlements on the child care issue. I ask for 30 seconds.

Mr. DODD. It is a capped entitlement on child care, so it will not be increased.

Mr. DODD. Let me respond. You asked the question. Let me respond. In regard to the issue of the vouchers, obviously the States and localities can do what they want. But we are talking about our Federal involvement here. We prohibit the use of the Federal funds, of our money, Federal money, if you will, to go for the voucher system. I just suggest that, if we are going to put people to work as we should, and if for some reason States are unable to meet those standards, then those children, whatever else you want to do with the adults, ought to have a safety net. The voucher ought to be a system they can use to provide for that safety net. We say that States ought to be able to provide that. The bill by the majority prohibits it. Obviously, we cannot stop a State from doing what it wants, but why would we prohibit them from using these moneys?

Mr. DODD. Four million.

Mr. DODD. I do not have any disagreement on that. On the adult side I have no disagreement. My focus is on the 8.8 million kids, 80 percent under the age of 12. That is the focus of my concern. My fear is the children are not being adequately protected at all.

Mr. DODD. Right.

Mr. DODD. The Senator did not hear me suggest I was going to offer an amendment to add additional funds for child care. I said health and safety standards. And I appreciate the fact we are going to be able to get more on child care. I say to my colleague, it will probably be inadequate. If, in fact, we get everybody to work, the money there will not provide for the child care needs for those families. I do not think anybody will tell you that it would be adequate. But I appreciate the fact there is more money and I appreciate the fact the Senator from Delaware, who is the chairman, is responsible for that.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. That is correct.

Mr. DODD. We are wasting time debating. Why don't we get to the amendment?

Mr. DODD. Right.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DODD. Yes, 30.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to.

Mr. DODD. I say to the majority leader, we had 30 minutes, and we will try to use less than that. We have a number of people who want to speak. That is the problem. I will try to keep it to no more than 30.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President I ask unanimous consent that Senator Boxer of California be added as a cosponsor, as well as Senator Exon and Senator Wellstone.

Mr. DODD. I understand that part of it. I think we would want to keep it. What I understood, this went beyond that, which I am not as knowledgeable as our colleague from Florida. In addition to that, you have refugees, asylees and others who would not necessarily fall into the category, or they did not have a sponsor and got here. That is what he is trying to carve out. That is why I suggest staff get together. Maybe I misunderstood. I yield to the Senator from Florida.

Mr. DODD. As I understood it, those were the parents of citizens who would come in legally, and under the deeming process their children assumed, as my colleague from Pennsylvania properly described, the financial responsibility of those parents coming in. The exchange was that both the Democratic proposal and the underlying bill prohibit that kind of situation from persisting. I think we all agree on that.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be able to proceed for 3 minutes.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, on behalf of the Democratic leader, I send to the desk a resolution to authorize representation by the Senate counsel, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment on behalf of myself and Senator Lieberman that will help to preserve strong technological innovation in the State of Connecticut, as well as contribute to the safety of U.S. troops. The amendment will allow the Navy to spend up to $10 million to initiate engineering and manufacturing development of the Magic Lantern airborne mine countermeasure system, which was created by the Kaman Co. of Connecticut. This important measure maintains the ability of one of Connecticut's businesses to continue development of vital antimine technology. The Magic Lantern system was deployed in a prototype stage during Desert Storm, and in subsequent tests, the improved system has met and exceeded every Navy-established criteria, including probability of detection and classification, area coverage, and false alarm rate. Mr. President, I understand this amendment will be agreed to, and I am pleased that the Magic Lantern program will be able to continue to contribute to both the economy of Connecticut and the safety of U.S. troops.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to voice my strong opposition to the National Right-to-Work Act. Today's legislation, coming on the heels of yesterday's unsuccessful effort to eviscerate the minimum wage, is simply one more example of the Republican Party's systematic and unremitting attack on America's labor unions. Yesterday, my Republican colleagues fought against giving working Americans a much needed helping hand, with a minimum wage increase. Today, they've brought to the floor a bill that would fundamentally undermine union efforts to genuinely represent and assist working families. At a time when we have many vital issues before this body, including genuine health insurance reform--which remains mired in partisan conflict--the last thing the Senate should be doing is spending our time debating this hasty and blatantly antiunion legislation. Now, this bill was neither marked up nor reported out of the Labor and Human Resources Committee. In fact, I wonder how many of my colleagues have even had the opportunity to thoroughly understand this legislation. We've heard no testimony and we've held no hearings on this bill, even though it represents a major override of the laws in 29 States-- including my home State of Connecticut--which reject right-to-work legislation. Now, since 1959, only three States have seen the need to enact right- to-work laws. In fact, over the past year, six State legislatures rejected such forms of right-to-work legislation. But, at a time when I constantly hear talk from my colleagues across the aisle about the need to shift responsibility to the States, this legislation would fundamentally change numerous State laws governing labor relations--laws that have remained largely unchanged over the past 37 years. It would undermine our time-honored system of free collective bargaining by imposing unnecessary Government interference in the rights of labor and management to negotiate fair and agreed-upon collective bargaining agreements. But, this bill is more than just a usurpation of State's rights. It would also outlaw any form of collectively bargained union security provisions. These are commonsense provisions that require nonunion workers to pay their fair share for the costs of union representation. It would say to nonunion members: ``You can receive the benefits of union representation without having to foot the bill.'' In my view, these provisions are antiunion, anti-worker, and frankly antidemocratic. When it comes to the question of union benefits, no American deserves something for nothing. But, that's exactly what this bill would do. These provisions undermine the fundamental rights of employees who have voted to unionize their workplace and I urge all my colleagues to reject this legislation and vote against cloture.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. I thank my colleague. I commend my colleague from New York and others who have been responsible for putting this matter together. Before getting to my comments on the minimum wage, let me also address the issue raised by our colleague from Illinois that our colleague from Kansas responded to, and that is dealing with the Harris Trust matter. Mr. President, let me say categorically and unequivocally to you, Mr. President, as well as to our colleagues, there is nothing in the managers' amendment that reverses the Harris decision by the Supreme Court--nothing at all. To put it briefly here, for 20 years the industry had operated on a set of guidelines established by the Department of Labor. No action was brought by the Department of Labor. It relied on the guidance as a means of how they did business dealing with pensions. In fact, no one can demonstrate any wrong that was done at all. The Supreme Court reached its decision in 1993 and and said using the guidance of the Department of Labor is invalid. The Court also in the decision then recommended that the Department of Labor or Congress establish new guidelines and regulations by which these pensions would be regulated. The Department of Labor thought it would be better if Congress acted and they acted on their own, and it ought to be done statutorily rather than by regulation. So for the past year and a half the Department of Labor, the industry, and those of us who have been involved in this matter, have spent about a year and a half putting together this amendment that is prospective, deals forward, and sets up a series of regulations that will not go into effect until next June, after serious consideration. We do not establish the regulations, the Department of Labor does. What those who are opposed to us doing this have in mind is that they want to have the retroactivity and to go back into those 20 years that the industry was allowed, through no action at all, to operate under Department of Labor guidances. Obviously, it could be a windfall to the trial lawyers to go back and bring actions based on 20 years of practice. We are trying to respond to that decision at the direction of the Court and to do so in a comprehensive, thoughtful way. That is what we have done. I point out that the language of this amendment dealing with the Harris Trust passed the committee 14 to 2 in a bipartisan vote. A lot of effort went into this. I commend my colleague from Kansas, Senator Kassebaum, who did a remarkably fine job, along with her staff. Bob Reich, the Secretary of Labor sent a letter to the chairman of the committee, Senator Kassebaum and Senator Kennedy urging adoption of this legislation. They spent a long time at it. As our colleague from Illinois pointed out, ERISA is complicated, but to suggest somehow we are reversing the Harris decision is just totally, completely, fundamentally incorrect. What we are trying to do is deal with a situation that, if we do not address, puts pensioners at risk by leaving the situation with only the Harris decision and no corrections being made. So I say, with all due respect to those who oppose this, this is a windfall, or could potentially be something that the trial lawyers would love to dive into for 20 years based on the Harris decision. We are saying, for 20 years that is how it operated. No one complained about it. No wrong was done. We are correcting a situation. I commend those who have been involved in this for bringing us to the point where we are going to finally straighten this matter out, as it should be. For those reasons I hope, at least on that basis, that our colleagues will vote against the managers' amendment that deals with a number of issues. Let me now reach, if I can, to the substance of what is the major debate and argument, and that is dealing with the minimum wage increase. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the sum and substance of my prepared remarks be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am saddened by this day that we are involved in a lengthy debate about the increase in the minimum wage. This should not be happening. It really should not be happening. We are talking about a 90-cent increase over 2 years. It has been 5 or 6 years since we have had any increase at all. The notion somehow that a family--remember, more than 73 percent of the people who get the minimum wage are over the age of 20. If you are on the minimum wage and you are age 20, it is not inconceivable that you are raising a family. We are not talking about teenagers. Few are over the age of 25. Some are. Obviously, then the number comes down. You have a sizable number of people between the ages of 20 and 25. But to suggest somehow that you can live on $36 a day--that is what the minimum wage is--$36 a day, with more than 73 percent of the people earning the minimum wage over the age of 20, and that we can't find it here possible to come up with a 90-cent increase for those people. If you will just consider the great debate we had here over last year's welfare reform, one of the major matters of debate and concern is, how do you avoid people falling back into dependency and on to public assistance? How do we get people who are living on welfare to move from welfare to work? That has been the subject of major debate and discussion here. How ironic, indeed, in this day in July that we are now going to potentially reverse or deny the opportunity for people who are making a minimum wage today, to get a modest increase over the next 2 years. With the minimum wage close to a 40-year low in terms of earning power, how do we prevent people from tumbling back into welfare? It seems to me that this ought to be passing unanimously on a voice vote. This ought not be the subject of an acrimonious debate on minimum wage at the very hour we are trying to move people from welfare to work. How can we say to people that if you get a minimum wage job, the most you can hope to make is $8,500 a year or $36 a day? I do not know of anywhere in America that you can live on $36 a day any longer. In fact, that is almost $4,000 less a year than is the poverty level for a family of four--which is $12,500. Frankly, as our colleagues know, there is no illusion. The Bond amendment is designed to just blow significant holes through the minimum wage and would take away from the roughly 10 million people who would otherwise qualify for the minimum wage and deny them the opportunity--those 10 million Americans--from seeing any benefit from a minimum wage increase. Our colleague from Minnesota earlier pointed out the benefits of $1,800. That is what a minimum wage increase of 90 cents amounts to-- $1,800 a year. With $1,800, you could afford a year of health insurance for yourself, or at least participate in health insurance. It is more than a year's tuition for the average 2-year community college, $1,800 a year. Think what a benefit that might be for someone at that minimum wage level trying to better themselves, trying to improve themselves, to be able to get an education, to move themselves further along, to avoid tumbling back, as I said earlier, into a life of dependency on State, local, or Federal welfare; $1,800 a year could buy groceries for a family for 7 months. So while I know people say we have to protect small business, I understand that. But of one study that I have seen done, says of the approximately 14 million low-paid jobs in the economy that could potentially be affected--there may be fewer than 100,000 jobs that would be adversely affected by a minimum wage increase. One of the most conservative studies done says 100,000 people out of 14 million people. I appreciate and understand the concern of wanting to protect small businesses. But how about protecting these people out there that we talk about all the time, who are getting off welfare, staying off welfare, and going to work? They need protection as well. Lastly, I would point out, as someone earlier did--I believe my colleague from Massachusetts--we have now done away pretty much with the summer JOBS Program. Again, what an irony indeed that we would be sitting here today talking about youth employment at the very time we ought to be trying to put kids to work during the summer. Then we turn around and deny, of course, a minimum wage increase that could potentially affect and benefit those younger people, as well, who would be looking for some employment, to be able to participate and contribute to their own educational needs and costs of participating and contributing to their family's financial needs. I will conclude as I began on this point. Again, I am saddened by this debate. This should not be happening--this debate. This is something that we passed and which has enjoyed strong bipartisan support. When President Bush took the leadership on it, it had bipartisan support. We have spent so many weeks. We have gone from the winter now into the depths of summer arguing for an increase in the minimum wage. I think it is a sad day, indeed, for this body. So I urge my colleagues for the remaining hour or so which we have before the vote to search their souls on this issue and support this minimum wage increase, and oppose the Bond amendment, which would gut this effort. I thank my colleague.